Communal Aerial Apartments Help!!

Victor

I only understood that as an opinion, not law.

athtrasna

Carawaystick there was a multi multi page thread about that on AAM last year. Bottom line is everyone is entitled to a dish, just they have to live somewhere dishes are allowed! You are not bound to live in a development that bans dishes so no laws broken.

Carawaystick

The EC say it's a fundamental freedom of the union that dishes are allowed. this means anywhere in the union is somewhere allowed. A management company contract cannot override the basic laws of the union.

WizZard

athtrasna wrote: »

You are not bound to live in a development that bans dishes so no laws broken.

With all due respect people should be able to choose where they want to live NOT solely based on whether the developer/managing agent does or does not allow satellite dishes.

Your argument of "Don't buy there if you want a satellite dish" or similar is simply not a option for a lot of people whose only choice of where to live is based on what they can afford, or for others who are now stuck in what they had previously deemed a "temporary" home due to the housing market crash.


And although the EU decision mentioned above has never been tested in Irish courts, the basis of it is that a person has a right to a satellite dish (or is it native language programming? It's been a while since I examined it) and a contract/rules cannot impinge on a person's rights. (There is the issue of planning permission to deal with here, which can be used to block dishes in some areas - different story entirely though)

athtrasna

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=74263

Lots and lots of discussion on here...lots of opinions but until there's a test case all we can do is posture!

ELSEBELLE

Hey all

Thank you to all who gave advice and help. Ok situation is having failed to contact management compnay again grrrrrr do they ever return calls?? I took it upon myself to call chorus ntl and sky to see if they were part of the communal system in the block and got a big no from all. So i looked at that skyinyourapartment.ie and apparently four people in the block have to want sky before it can be brought in so I registered just need three more. So annoying, so if it's not chorus, ntl or sky what does that leave?
Getting worried if we ever had a serious grievance with management compnay would they even respond - oh they will be on the ball looking for their fee alright. Thanks again

Geog

Does this mean that everyone in the complex has to pay for the tv dish, regardless of whether they want access to all the channels or not?

connundrum

Keith C wrote: »

Slightly off topic but ive heard of managment companies who are imposing €10,000 excess's on insurance claims even though the insurance policy only has an excess of €750.
If anyone is paying management fee's (everyone in apts) you should be wary of any excess & request a copy of the insurance which im sure the mc are obliged to provide.

In 2007 many of my blocks had an excess of approx €500, and we were instructed by the directors of several of these MC's to tell enquiring owners that the excess was €2000 - €5000 depending.

The thinking was that by telling them that the excess was so big, it'd reduce the amount of claims per year, which in turn would reduce the premium and therefore the management fee.

Of course, an owner who is full paid up with management fees has a full right to request a copy of the insurance schedule, which would show what the actual excess was.

Be aware that by not paying your management fee, you are not paying towards the insurance premium, and therefore may not be able to make a claim for water damage etc. I haven't seen a case involving this brought to court though so I can't be sure what way it'd go. We were instructed not to process any claims where the mgt fee hadn't been fully paid.

Geog wrote: »

Does this mean that everyone in the complex has to pay for the tv dish, regardless of whether they want access to all the channels or not?

Sky would install the dish for free. Each owner pays a fee for installation only if they wish to sign up for the service.

athtrasna

ELSEBELLE wrote: »

Hey all

Thank you to all who gave advice and help. Ok situation is having failed to contact management compnay again grrrrrr do they ever return calls?? I took it upon myself to call chorus ntl and sky to see if they were part of the communal system in the block and got a big no from all. So i looked at that skyinyourapartment.ie and apparently four people in the block have to want sky before it can be brought in so I registered just need three more. So annoying, so if it's not chorus, ntl or sky what does that leave?
Getting worried if we ever had a serious grievance with management compnay would they even respond - oh they will be on the ball looking for their fee alright. Thanks again

For a start you need to learn the difference between the management agent who's the one you've been calling, and the management company. There's a big difference and it's important to know and understand it as an apartment owner, maybe buy Robert Gogan's book. It will also explain about fees, the agent's fee is a small proportion of the fee collected.

As for the television provider, my guess is Smart telecom as they also do tv and do deals for apartment blocks.

Keith C

connundrum wrote: »

In 2007 many of my blocks had an excess of approx €500, and we were instructed by the directors of several of these MC's to tell enquiring owners that the excess was €2000 - €5000 depending.

The thinking was that by telling them that the excess was so big, it'd reduce the amount of claims per year, which in turn would reduce the premium and therefore the management fee.

Of course, an owner who is full paid up with management fees has a full right to request a copy of the insurance schedule, which would show what the actual excess was.
Be aware that by not paying your management fee, you are not paying towards the insurance premium, and therefore may not be able to make a claim for water damage etc. I haven't seen a case involving this brought to court though so I can't be sure what way it'd go. We were instructed not to process any claims where the mgt fee hadn't been fully paid.



Sky would install the dish for free. Each owner pays a fee for installation only if they wish to sign up for the service.

So if the damage was €20k, you'd ask the owner to pay €10k x/s then claim the other €10k off the insurance? or get €10k off owner, pay €500 x/s on insurance to claim for the damage, what happens to the €10k x/s the owner paid?

Sounds highly immoral what your doing, mgt fee's contribute towards insurance, if there are insurance claims people are entitled to claim.
Numerous water damage claims would suggest apartment is poorly built.

Doesnt matter what excess you charge, apartment/block insurance is going to rise drastically over the next few years.

connundrum

Keith C wrote: »

So if the damage was €20k, you'd ask the owner to pay €10k x/s then claim the other €10k off the insurance? or get €10k off owner, pay €500 x/s on insurance to claim for the damage, what happens to the €10k x/s the owner paid?

Sounds highly immoral what your doing, mgt fee's contribute towards insurance, if there are insurance claims people are entitled to claim.
Numerous water damage claims would suggest apartment is poorly built.

Doesnt matter what excess you charge, apartment/block insurance is going to rise drastically over the next few years.

I must point out that I am not a managing agent any more.

Essentially, telling the owners that the excess was €10k initially would be the only action we'd take. If the claim went through, then we wouldn't be in a position to take any monies awarded by the insurance company for the claim.

We tell the owner the excess is €10k (as per your example).
Owner wishes to proceed with claim for €20k damages.
Claim is processed by us and insurance company.
Owner is awarded €19,500 (minus the €500 actual excess).

Telling people of the 'high excess' was only a deterrent. Also be aware that we'd be acting on instructions of the directors of the management company, so the immoral responibility would be shared between ourselves (MA), the directors (MC) and some owners who have been putting in severely inflated/false claims over the years.